AFL-CIO blogger Tula Connell is substituting this week for Jordan Barab.
Voting by secret ballot sounds like the American way.
At least it did before paperless electronic voting machines. But there’s another secret ballot election process that definitely is not democratic: The one that takes place when you’re trying to form a union.
Right now, if you and your co-workers want to join a union, you must go through the federal National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which includes an “election” complete with secret ballots—unless your employer is one of the rare companies that won’t force you to do so.
Because NLRB “elections” are anything but democratic.
The NLRB process takes so long, is so tilted in favor of employers and has such weak remedies, it actually encourages managers to harass, intimidate and even fire employees.
It’s illegal, but 25 percent of private-sector employers fire workers who try to form a union. And many more threaten workers with closings, layoffs and outsourcing.
And even though some of these employer actions are against the law, workers who try to get their jobs back or stop the harassment face months or years of litigation to battle their employers. The NLRB, which is supposed to enforce labor law, but its lengthy, bureaucratic process is no help. This antiquated and broken NLRB system matters a lot—while the NLRB sounds like just another bureaucratic government agency, it’s holding down working families' living standards and weakening our country. [Union workers earn 29 percent more than nonunion workers, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Their median weekly earnings for full-time wage and salary work were $801 in 2005, compared with $622 for their nonunion counterparts. The union difference really does make a difference…more details here .]
“As long as there is no law to protect us better, I don’t think it is likely that I will organize again,” Mario Ramirez said, after the Manhattan sewing shop where he worked closed down in the wake of a 1997 union organizing drive.
Ramirez was among workers profiled in a Human Rights Watch report. Human Rights Watch, an international organization that conducts systematic investigations of human rights abuses in 70 countries, turned its attention to the United States in 2000 and concluded that “freedom of association is a right under severe, often buckling pressure when workers in the United States try to exercise it.”
In the early days of the NLRB, created in the 1930s, workers got union representation in the workplace by signing cards indicating their desire to be represented by a union—what we call a majority verification process (sometimes called “card-check”). Many unions are returning to that original process—and are achieving great success. Unions like the Communications Workers of America (CWA).
In a little more than a year, some 22,000 former AT&T employees who now work for Cingular Wireless have signed up to join CWA. Many live in right to work for less states such as Virginia, Mississippi and Texas. Overall, some 90 percent of Cingular’s employees, or nearly 40,000 workers, have CWA representation. And they did it without the employer harassment or worker fear of being fired that too often happens when workers choose to join a union.
When the new Congress convenes in January, we in the union movement will be working with lawmakers like Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. George Miller to re-introduce the Employee Free Choice Act. One of the Employee Free Choice Act’s main goals would be to allow workers to freely choose whether to be represented by a union by signing cards authorizing union representation—majority verification. The Employee Free Choice Act also would:
- Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.
- Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.
Even in the 109th Congress, the Employee Free Choice Act garnered 216 co-sponsors, two short of the total needed for passage. In the Senate, 43 lawmakers signed on. (See a list of co-sponsors here .)
Now, with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, Big Business and its anti-worker representatives like the U.S. Chamber of Congress and the National Association of Manufacturers will be launching an all-out campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act. They will say—as they’ve said in the past—that unions are “undemocratic” because we don’t support the NLRB election process.
That accusation is a lie.
One of the most vitriolic of the anti-worker, anti-union propagandists is Richard Berman , whose long history of PR sleaze campaigns now includes the misleadingly named group, Union Facts, that acts as a front to do the dirty work for organizations like the Chamber. Berman’s past list of hatchet jobs includes a PR campaign to slam Mothers Against Drunk Driving on behalf of the alcohol industry and another literally toxic campaign for the tuna industry that Village Voice described as encouraging pregnant women to eat tuna—never mind the mercury.
Another claim by Berman and others—like neocon Mickey Kaus —who oppose workers’ freedom to form unions is that the NLRB process is “more fair” because union organizers “coerce” workers in the card-check process.
Not so, according to the vast majority of workers surveyed in a poll by the employee advocacy group American Rights at Work. Rutgers University and Wheeling Jesuit University professors Adrienne Eaton, Ph.D., and Jill Kriesky, Ph.D., respectively, conducted a national telephone survey of 430 randomly selected workers from worksites where employees sought to become represented by unions using NLRB elections or card-check campaigns in 2002.
Among the survey’s findings:
- Workers in NLRB elections were twice as likely (46 percent compared with 23 percent) as those in card-check campaigns to report that management coerced them to oppose the union.
- Fewer workers in card-check campaigns than in elections felt pressure from co-workers to support the union (17 percent compared with 22 percent).
American Rights at Work Executive Director Mary Beth Maxwell sums it up succinctly:
Looking at the survey results, one can only conclude that card-check opponents are trying to solve the wrong problem. If protecting workers’ free choice is really the goal, then you’ve got to start by ending management coercion.
We will be getting out the message that Employee Free Choice means just that.
Photo credit: David Bacon
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight


Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

RSS/XML Feed
Eslen!
Is there a way the DLC can assist organized labor?
Very informative post. I am so pleased to see these labor related posts have been appearing regularly here at FDL. My daughter, I am proud and pleased to say, has for the past six months been employed at COSH, the Council for occupational Safety and Health.
Is there anything that can be done in “right to work” states?
Marion in Savannah @ 4
“Right to work” Gawd I dislike that term. Right to work is purely anti-labor and anti-union. Corporate and Republican evil at its best.
Are there any programs that could fill the gap for self employed individuals to provide cooperative alliances with others of various skills? Any kind of alternative representation like that? It would be great if we could network a pool of talent/skills for varied participation, representation and opportunities. Are traditional unions our only choice?
copied from prev thread
katymine @ 45
I think this was a recent change under Bush that was tied to the new overtime law as a great advance for workers. We knew it was bullshit and fought it, but we lost. I’m sorry anyone has to go through what these nurses endure.
My sister has been a nurse for 28 years. She would agree completely with the katymine quote above. After (I think) 20 years of hospital work, my sis went into geriatric care at a community designed for healthy retirees. She loves the seniors and does not miss the hospital environment at all. I applauded her decision and still support it, but I have to say that I feel the hospital community is a lesser place for it. She has such compassion and sympathy in her. Something has to change for the brave men and women who work as nurses in hospitals. It is well past time.
Is something odd happening on the FDL site tonight? Why have there been only 2 comments in the past hour? Is everybody on some other thread or is there just nobody here?
No surprise that He/her Wilson of NM is not a co-sponsor. By the thinnest margin s/he is still there.
Health care is such a total crap shoot. It is really like a roll of the dice. Sometimes the luck is with ya, sometimes not.
I have been visiting the hospital this week. In two days the med was not delivered and the tubes were switched. Not life or death in either case, but rough on the patient.
Maybe next time, it is life or death. A crap shoot for sure.
Thanks for the post Tula. It’s great to see the connections between the netroots and the labor movement continue to grow. I think there still needs to be a great deal of education about labor issues online (I consider myself fairly uninformed and I used to be union). IMHO, labor and the netroots were two of the main reasons when it comes to grassroots mobilization - as opposed to the work of the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC - that Democrats were able to win such a resounding victory last month.
I am so excited to see FDL cover nursing.
There are so many complex issues related with nurses and unions. I really believe that nurses benefit from unionization. We do have a union where I work and I am a member. It is elective.
Patient ratios to Rn is an unbelievably important thing.
Do you really want a frazzled, exhausted, stressed out human being responsible for your life?
Next time I am at the hospital, I am going to talk with the nurses about the ratios, unions, etc. This particular hospital is run by Ardent, a particularly crappy company.
Late night upstairs
A few random thoughts: nurses need the collective bargaining power of a union in-order to address salary and work place issues. The nursing administration isn’t looking out for the folks doing the work. The nursing shortage is getting worse and nursing extenders are not going to make up for the short fall. One problem with increasing the numbers is the lack of nursing educators. The pay is poor compared to clinical nursing, so it is very hard to expand teaching programs.
The good news is an RN can get a job almost any place in the country and even with the economy probably going into the tank, an RN is unlikely to be unemployed. It also looks like salaries are going up again.
Something I still don’t get:
Why is a card check, where the employee has to a sign a card and declare his/her public support and thus be subject to reprisals, better than a secret ballot where s/he does not?
How is it even possible for the employer coerce employees at all? If the ballot is secret, they can’t find out who voted for the union and so there’s no one to punish. Unless they punish everyone, by, say, closing down an entire plants, but it seems to me they could do that in response to a card-check, too.
So what am I missing?
Kudos Jordan for your inspired post!
Card-check is almost always paired with a Neutrality Agreement, in which the company agrees beforehand to stay out of the organization campaign. Company management is not allowed to lobby against union organization.
Even without neutrality, if an employee has a signed piece of paper stating that she is in favor of organizing, and then she is fired by management, she has solid evidence for legal proceedings. Instead of a she-said, they-said situation, she has a piece of paper backing up her claim that she was unlawfully dismissed for expressing her desire to organize.
That’s a valuable piece of paper. It puts a significant burden of proof on the employer to justify its decision to dismiss–the employer would have to show evidence that the employee had committed wrongdoing and that her termination was consistent with other employees regardless of their card-check status. Even in right-to-work states, and even under this DOL.
I worked for At&t for several years and I got to tell you, the Union workers are the lazyiest people I have ever met. They were always sleeping on the job and if they were not, they were all huddled together gossiping. They really acted like children…and always complained about everything. I hate unions, they promote lazyness. Back in the days they had a good purpose, but now…they are only destroying proper work ethics, heck look at the destruction they are doing to the automobile industry !
They always want more, more, and more !
Boycott Smithfield Ham!
The NLRB process takes so long, it gives employers tons of opportunity to harass workers and intimidate them with the goal of scaring them out of joining a union. People need their jobs, and when employers start making their life harder on the job because they support a union–giving them dangerous assignments or writing them up for any tiny infraction, real or made up–they naturally back off from forming a union.
The majority verification (card-check) enables workers to sign a card and indicate their desire for a union much more quickly, saving them months and sometimes years of harassment involved in the NLRB process. (And that’s just one reason).wrog @ 17
Right, but how do they know who to harass? If it’s a secret ballot, how do they know who’s supporting the union? And if they just aimlessly harass people, that should only make it more likely that they’ll vote for the union; if management can’t find out how you voted, then there’s no downside to voting yes.
Or is it that the NLRB is cheating and revealing to the company who voted how?
Even if the employment contract is “at will” (i.e., they simply don’t have to give a reason if they want to terminate you)?
Also, it seems to me they could just bide their time, so that the connection isn’t so obvious.
That is, you sign the card, going on record and thus you become a target. Now I’ll agree that having the card is useful if they’re stupid enough to fire you immediately. But what if they bide their time, doing whatever they need to slowly build up a case against you, and then, say, a year later, they fire you. At that point the card is ancient history and they have a well-documented set of charges against you for a legitimate termination.
So again, how is this an improvement over being able to cast a vote that management can’t ever find out about?
It seems like the real objection to the NLRB process is not the secret ballot aspect but rather that they move so damn slowly
Want an example of how unions help workers make more?
In 1978, I moved to Cincinnati and got a job working in a non-union lumberyard. The job paid $2.65 an hour. After a couple of months, I decided to move back to Kansas City. I got another job, this time for a union lumberyard. It paid $7.80 an hour.
I got a real kick out of this:
union organizers “coerce” workers
So a union organizer who has absolutely no ability to discipline or fire a worker can “coerce” workers, but their bosses can’t? Shyeah, right.
Usually when a union begins an organizing campaign, one or more employees talk to other employees about signing cards called “union authorization cards.” When at least 30% of the eligible employees have signed, the Union can present them to the NLRB for an election. What sometimes happens during this initial period is that the company gets wind of what’s going on, and retaliates. If the company is shown cards from a majority of employees saying they want a union, it is faced with more employees to retaliate against. That’s the power of the “card check” vs. an election. The Republican appointees to the Board have limited employee rights for at least the past five years. With a Democratic Congress, maybe the big-business party won’t be able to get confirmation of appointees with extreme positions. However, there will need to be a Democratic administration to make substantive changes.